Welcome to Texas justice: You might beat the rap, but you won't beat the ride.

Wednesday, February 27, 2013

Prosecutor: Blacks and Hispanics with money? Must be drug dealers

SCOTUSBlog brings word of a federal case originating in Texas in which a prosecutor made an improper, race-based argument, earning him a stern rebuke from the newest US Supreme Court justice:

The comments by Justices Sotomayor and Breyer on a Texas prosecutor’s racial remarks in a drug conspiracy trial came as the Court denied review in Calhoun v. United States (docket 12-6142). The two Justices did not dissent from that denial, but said they were commenting “to dispel any doubt whether the Court’s denial of certiorari should be understood to signal our tolerance of a federal prosecutors’ racially charged remark. It should not.” ...

At the trial of Bongani Charles Calhoun, who is African American, the issue of his intent came up when he was being cross-examined by a prosecutor. Calhoun had contended that he did not know what was going on when a friend arrived at their hotel room with a bag of money, and had said that he did not want to be there.

Here is what Sotomayor’s opinion said happened next: “The prosecutor pressed Calhoun repeatedly to explain why he did not want to be in the hotel room. Eventually, the District Judge told the prosecutor to move on. That is when the prosecutor asked, ‘You’ve got African-Americans, you’ve got Hispanics, you’ve got a bag full of money. Does that tell you — a light bulb doesn’t go off in your head and say, This is a drug deal?’ ”

The two Justices went on to criticize not only the prosecutor, but also Calhoun’s defense lawyer for failing to object, as well as Justice Department lawyers for their response. When the case was on appeal to the Fifth Circuit Court, Sotomayor wrote, “the government failed to recognize the wrongfulness” of the prosecutor’s question, calling it “impolitic.” Belatedly, Sotomayor wrote, the U.S. Solicitor General had called the remark “improper” as the case unfolded in Supreme Court filings.

Sotomayor commented: “It is deeply disturbing to see a representative of the United States resort to this base tactic more than a decade into the 21st Century.”

The two Justices did not dissent from the denial of review, concluding that the Court was right because Calhoun and his lawyer had forfeited the arguments they could have made in lower courts and in their Supreme Court petition.

Go here to read Sotomayor's full statement. Ken at Popehat identified the prosecutor in question as Assistant US Attorney Sam L. Ponder of Texas' Western District in San Antonio. Talking Points Memo (TPM) identified Calhoun's defense attorney at trial, the one who failed to object, as Jay Moritz, who now says he "probably should have asked for a mistrial." TPM added that, "A spokesman for the U.S. Attorney’s Office ... said the
incident was referred to the Office of Professional Responsibility at
the Justice Department but declined to comment further. The Office of
Professional Responsibility is the Justice Department’s internal
watchdog tasked with investigating allegations of misconduct involving
DOJ attorneys. The Justice Department has not responded to requests for
comment about Sotomayor’s statement."

The
Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the appeal by Danielczyk and Biagi means
that the case will now return to lower courts, either for trial or for a
plea. In their petition, the two contended that the Citizens United
decision requires that the flat ban on corporate contributions be
struck down. As usual, the Supreme Court offered no explanation in
denying review.
The comments by Justices Sotomayor and Breyer on a Texas prosecutor’s
racial remarks in a drug conspiracy trial came as the Court denied
review inCalhoun v. United States(docket
12-6142). The two Justices did not dissent from that denial, but said
they were commenting “to dispel any doubt whether the Court’s denial of
certiorari should be understood to signal our tolerance of a federal
prosecutors’ racially charged remark. It should not.”
At the trial of Bongani Charles Calhoun, who is African American, the
issue of his intent came up when he was being cross-examined by a
prosecutor. Calhoun had contended that he did not know what was going
on when a friend arrived at their hotel room with a bag of money, and
had said that he did not want to be there.
Here is what Sotomayor’s opinion said happened next: “The prosecutor
pressed Calhoun repeatedly to explain why he did not want to be in the
hotel room. Eventually, the District Judge told the prosecutor to move
on. That is when the prosecutor asked, ‘You’ve got African-Americans,
you’ve got Hispanics, you’ve got a bag full of money. Does that tell
you — a light bul doesn’t go off in your head and say, This is a drug
deal?’ ”
The two Justices went on to criticize not only the prosecutor, but
also Calhoun’s defense lawyer for failing to object, as well as Justice
Department lawyers for their response. When the case was on appeal to
the Fifth Circuit Court, Sotomayor wrote, “the government failed to
recognize the wrongfulness” of the prosecutor’s question, calling it
“impolitic.” Belatedly, Sotomayor wrote, the U.S. Solicitor General
had called the remark “improper” as the case unfolded in Supreme Court
filings.
Sotomayor commented: “It is deeply disturbing to see a representative
of the United States resort to this base tactic more than a decade into
the 21st Century.”
The two Justices did not dissent from the denial of review,
concluding that the Court was right because Calhoun and his lawyer had
forfeited the arguments they could have made in lower courts and in
their Supreme Court petition.
- See more at: http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/02/court-grants-two-cases-5/#more-159938

2 comments:

Alex S.
said...

I know both Ponder and Moritz--both are excellent ethical attorneys but it seems they both made mistakes--nobody's perfect. I guarantee you Ponder was not trying to win the case based on race. People forget there was $400,000 in cash laying on the bed in the hotel; 2 cooperating testifying co-defendants and 2 undercover DEA agents.

Alex, The case held up...just the behavior of Ponder failed to meet muster. You know you can have a guiilty defendant and prosecutorial misconduct....nothing mutually exclusive about those two things. Why do prosecutors get so mad when the defense uses the state's misdeeds in an effort to defend their "guilty" client. God forbid the defense put on a zealous defense! They get offended that the defense would stand in the way they step over the line.

"I always tell people interested in these issues that your blog is the most important news source, and have had high-ranking corrections officials tell me they read it regularly."

- Scott Medlock, Texas Civil Rights Project

"a helluva blog"

- Solomon Moore, NY Times criminal justice correspondent

"Congrats on building one of the most read and important blogs on a specific policy area that I've ever seen"

- Donald Lee, Texas Conference of Urban Counties

GFB "is a fact-packed, trustworthy reporter of the weirdness that makes up corrections and criminal law in the Lone Star State" and has "shown more naked emperors than Hans Christian Andersen ever did."

-Attorney Bob Mabry, Conroe

"Grits really shows the potential of a single-state focused criminal law blog"

- Corey Yung, Sex Crimes Blog

"I regard Grits for Breakfast as one of the most welcome and helpful vehicles we elected officials have for understanding the problems and their solutions."

Tommy Adkisson,Bexar County Commissioner

"dude really has a pragmatic approach to crime fighting, almost like he’s some kind of statistics superhero"

- Rob Patterson, The Austin Post"Scott Henson's 'Grits for Breakfast' is one of the most insightful blogs on criminal justice issues in Texas."

- Texas Public Policy Foundation

"Nobody does it better or works harder getting it right"

David Jennings, aka "Big Jolly"

"I appreciate the fact that you obviously try to see both sides of an issue, regardless of which side you end up supporting."

Kim Vickers,Texas Commission on Law Enforcement Officer Standards and EducationGrits for Breakfast "has probably broken more criminal justice stories than any TX reporter, but stays under the radar. Fascinating guy."

Maurice Chammah,The Marshall Project"unrestrained and uneducated"

John Bradley,Former Williamson County District Attorney, now former Attorney General of Palau

"our favorite blog"

- Texas District and County Attorneys Association Twitter feed"Scott Henson ... writes his terrific blog Grits for Breakfast from an outhouse in Texas."